I started an
Asian American dance rock band as an outlet for artistic expression while celebrating
our cultural pride. It's called "The Slants," a reference to our perspective,
or "slant," on life as people of color. It's a commonly used word. Yet, the trademark
office rejected our case, under the premise of "slant" being a racial slur.
Specifically, they believed it inappropriate for an Asian to use the word, no
matter the intent.

In other words,
I was denied because of my race. I was accused of being "too Asian" because of
our album artwork. If I were white, this would not be a problem. No other
trademark application on the term "slant" has been refused for racism
until now (there have been nearly 800). The term has never been considered to
be a racial slur by the trademark office until an Asian applied.

Yet, some still
argue that the trademark office's actions were not racist. Racism doesn't have
to be only seen as white supremacists, burning crosses or white hoods. Racism
isn't even only restricted to certain words. No, the effects of racism are
found in systemic conditions that marginalize certain populations, especially
when those outcomes can be attributed to race. Denying a right based on race is
the very essence of racism.

Some ask why
we'd choose to fight such a long, expensive battle. After all, we can still use
the name, even if we can't register the trademark.

For me, this is
another example of systemic racism driven by privilege. The fact of the matter
is that this law has been unfairly targeting minorities since the 1940s, when
it was conceived. Overcoming this law would be a small but important victory
in the greater battle for equality. For anyone who has been marginalized - be
it from race, sexual orientation, gender, age, religion, or anything else - it
is especially meaningful because it is saying that our communities should have
the right to set the tone on appropriateness, not some unconnected government
agency.

It isn't just
about my band's name; it's about granting equal consideration to anyone who
comes before the law. We can still use our band name but that doesn't address
the heart of the matter: People should not be denied rights because of their
race. It's absurd that to protect against racism, the trademark office is
denying rights based on race.

Why does the trademark
office treat me as an "Asian" and not just as an "American" for this
application? It's almost Orwellian: Everyone is equal, some are just more equal
than others. Ironically, we could have secured the trademark if we had a white
applicant file instead but we wanted to win on principle, to win on truth.

The
results-oriented decision by the trademark office used wiki-sources like UrbanDictionary.com to support its case.
Additionally, they deliberately distorted evidence and ignored national,
independent surveys/research with the opinions of actual Asian Americans (who
overwhelmingly support our band). This kind of behavior wouldn't be acceptable
in high school, yet is being used in a court of law.

It is my hope
that this case brings meaningful discourse on race in this country, to look at
the actual systems of privilege and underlying attitudes and assumptions that
people have about culture. More than a trademark registration, this would be
the most meaningful victory of all.

Simon Tam is
the founder/bassist of the Portland-based band The Slants, an author and an MBA
student at Marylhurst University. His writing can be found at simontam.biz and he is on Twitter
@SimonTheTam.